[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DEE4199.3090300@trash.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:19:53 +0200
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, pablo@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use unsigned variables for packet lengths in ip[6]_queue.
On 07.06.2011 16:39, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 04:19:08PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
> > >>> With the patch below, I haven't been able to reproduce the problem, but
> > >>> I don't know if I've inadvertantly broken some other behaviour somewhere
> > >>> deeper in netlink where this is valid.
> > >
> > > This is fine, but I'm wondering whether this can really fix the problem
> > > you've been seeing. Before the packet is reallocated, the length of
> > > nlmsglen - NLMSGLEN(0) - sizeof(struct ipq_peer_msg) is compared to
> > > ipq_peer_msg->data_len, so both values need to be wrong.
> > > ipq_peer_msg->data_len is a size_t, so it's unsigned.
> > >
> > > I think what we should additionally do is verify that data_len < 65535
> > > since that's the maximum size of an IP packet.
> >
> > We're actually already doing this. This makes it even more strange that
> > you're seeing this problem. Could you send me your testcase?
>
> I don't have a standalone test-case, just a generic fuzzing tool that passes
> sockets to various syscalls. You can clone it from git://git.codemonkey.org.uk/trinity.git/
> (the test-random.sh should explain how to use it)
Thanks, that explains the weird values. Still wondering how it managed
to get passed the ipq_peer_msg length check.
Anyways, I'll give it a try myself.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists